Actually, they do what you "pay them through the nose" to do.
No one is a winner in protracted court cases or even in settlements. The lawyers always win, all the time.
What we need is a lawyer quota. The number of lawyers can never exceed a preset number according to the general population. Trying to be a lawyer when the quota was exceeded? Tough, switch majors. A quota that cuts the current number by 1/5th would be about right. And making it much harder, if not impossible, to file software patents would also work to improve things greatly.
As an AAPL shareholder I don't approve of company money going for a payoff or a bribe to a competitor like Creative, who by the way doesn't have a single creative bone in their body, which is why the iPod is vastly more successful than the offerings of Creative. And I especially loath the fact that so much money is spent in the corporate world on lawyers. Laywers = money. Hence Lawyers are the root of all evil.
As an AAPL shareholder I don't approve of company money going for a payoff or a bribe to a competitor like Creative, who by the way doesn't have a single creative bone in their body, which is why the iPod is vastly more successful than the offerings of Creative.
Oh, but this is delicious.
Apple had two choices: legitimize the patent, and pay, or beat the patent, and let everyone else in the industry copy the interface at will.
They paid.
Now Creative can go after everyone else. Say, Zune? Apple gets a portion of the licensing fees.
Apple also got Creative on board as an iPod accessory maker, which means that Creative will now be making Zens, and iPod accessories. Guess which line will get dropped first?
Game. Set. Match. All for a measly 100M$. That's pennies in comparison to what's at stake.
Actually, they do what you "pay them through the nose" to do.
No one is a winner in protracted court cases or even in settlements. The lawyers always win, all the time.
What we need is a lawyer quota. The number of lawyers can never exceed a preset number according to the general population. Trying to be a lawyer when the quota was exceeded? Tough, switch majors. A quota that cuts the current number by 1/5th would be about right. And making it much harder, if not impossible, to file software patents would also work to improve things greatly.
As an AAPL shareholder I don't approve of company money going for a payoff or a bribe to a competitor like Creative, who by the way doesn't have a single creative bone in their body, which is why the iPod is vastly more successful than the offerings of Creative. And I especially loath the fact that so much money is spent in the corporate world on lawyers. Laywers = money. Hence Lawyers are the root of all evil.
so you want to reduce the supply of lawyers.... <points to a chart on the wall illustrating the effects of supply and demand>
It's very simple with Microsoft about to invest and release Zune, nothing could be better for Apple than having creative on it's good side.
Down the road Apple could buy Creative, or use them as an allie and allow them to use fairplay when the movie store comes out.
I think it was a wise move on Apple's part. Technically the interface is only patented because creative got there first, and then you have portaplayer which make interfaces similar which is actually the interface apple has been using for a long time...
But in the end it's good all around, as a shareholder, I wanted to see the issue resolved quickly. I'm glad Apple made nice with a competitor. It will be a good thing.
I wonder if MS's announcement of Zune helped pave the way for Creative. After getting suckered into the 'PlaysForSure' scheme, they got burned by MS. Guess they felt there was no other choice but to settle and go after MS (and others) down the line.
Of course, I'm a hardhead from Brooklyn and would have fought to the bitter end. Or not.
It's not about the easy way out. It's about right and wrong and putting your foot down for what is right. It's about putting an end to frivilous lawsuits by NOT SETTLING. The reason there are so many suits is because people who commit fraud know they can make easy money from companies who settle. Slip and fall in a grocery store? Just threaten to sue and you can settle for $8,500 -- even if you faked your own fall! I've worked for many a company who settle case after case because they said "it would cost more to do the right thing."
It's no different than Israel stomping Hezbollah over two snatched soldiers. Allowing such crimes without doing anything (i.e., "just settle for something small and hush it up") leaves the door open for others to follow suit in the future. A lot of people paid the price for Israel doing what was right. A lot of pain and suffering resulted, but it had to be done. And while that won't bring peace in the middle east, it does show the world and Israel's violent neighbors that they'd better think twice the next time they try such again.
And so, I'm not one to wimp out and "just settle" because it encourages more crime to continue. And while some may argue that Creative broke no laws, the fact is they are highly unethical at best, which is a crime in my book. What is unethical? When you no longer have the creative juices to keep yourself alive in the market, you hire a lawyer and sue somebody. That is unethical. And that is the mainstay in American business, sadly.
Argue all you want about how good it is for Apple in the end. But a wrong doesn't make a right. Especially when that wrong leaves the door wide open with a sign over it saying, "Come in all ye who need money. Sue us and well shall settle." As an AAPL shareholder, I want Apple to make a lot of profit ethically, without fueling future legal troubles by showing everyone "Apple settles."
It sounds like Apple kindly reminded them that Creative is screwed in the mp3 player market, but because they own a very important patent that Apple wanted to make nice on, Apple was willing to pay $100 mil. Apple probably also helped Creative understand that by allowing them into the third party accessory market, Creative could actually end up making some money now. It's the patent licensing profit sharing that confuses me....
I don't think it's quite "profit sharing." Apple's license of Creative's patents seems to me to be currently "exclusive," in the sense that it's the only company to do so, so far. When other companies license Creative's technology, Apple will recoup some of that money because they negotiated such that if other OEMs license that technology, it wouldn't be worth the $100mil.
In any case, Apple pulled a Microsoft (as someone said): look at the Burst patents; Microsoft licensed their technology, which ultimately funded Burst to sue Apple and others that use technology that (they claim) infringes upon their patent.
JDW: If Apple had won, they would have likely paid much more in legal fees, and Creative would be dead. End result: Zen gone, $$$ wasted.
If Creative had won, iPod would be likely gutted, either technologically, or financially. End result: huge opening for Zune, Zen gone when it succeeds. Make no doubt about it - MS's move *from* SureToPlay is going to kill the non-iPod market. All those companies that went with MS are now screeeeeeeewed.
It was in Creative's interest to settle, to be honest. They saw the writing on the wall re: Zen... it's dead. They know this. What they just did was to get an out into the iPod market, a cash infusion to keep going during the transition, and validation of the patent (as stupid as it may be) to go after other players if they choose to.
It was in Apple's interest to settle, also. A win would have been costly in the market competition, a loss costly in the pocketbook.
The patent was questionable, no doubt about it, but it was in *no one's* interest to win this one. Odd, no?
And really... could you keep the highly questionable politics out of this thread? PoliticalOutsider is for that.
One thing's for sure. Apple's patent lawyer (and legal team) shoud be strung up and beaten like a red-headed stepchild for either not doing due diligence on this issue, or being proactive enough to patent this in the early development stage. Patent applications are complex, but fer cryin' out loud, this was a $100 million problem that shouldn't have been.
I don't think it's quite "profit sharing." Apple's license of Creative's patents seems to me to be currently "exclusive," in the sense that it's the only company to do so, so far. When other companies license Creative's technology, Apple will recoup some of that money because they negotiated such that if other OEMs license that technology, it wouldn't be worth the $100mil.
In any case, Apple pulled a Microsoft (as someone said): look at the Burst patents; Microsoft licensed their technology, which ultimately funded Burst to sue Apple and others that use technology that (they claim) infringes upon their patent.
The most significant part of this agreement is that Apple's payment is a one time fee. No licensing fee in perpetuity, and if the next iteration of iPod differs slightly and circumvents the patent, it renders it useless anyway.
It's not about the easy way out. It's about right and wrong and putting your foot down for what is right.
These concepts don't apply to the business world. It's about running your business, providing value to your shareholders, and avoiding jail time for the things that magically became illegal after you did them. Michael Milkin, anyone? Mikhail Khodorkovsky, anyone?
Well here's the thing - this *was* a bogus patent. The basic UI idea had been kicking around for 20 years, more or less. The *only* reason Creative got it was that the USPTO screwed up.
However, once it was granted, and the lawsuit started, this was the best outcome for both companies, and for the consumer. Ironic, but true.
Well here's the thing - this *was* a bogus patent. The basic UI idea had been kicking around for 20 years, more or less. The *only* reason Creative got it was that the USPTO screwed up.
You may be right, but remember, just because this specific thing existed for a computer, it was never patented broadly enough to cover the specific concept of digital music devices. Patents must be broad enough to cover possible uses, but specific enough to gain patent status. If it was easy, everyone would do it and walk away millionaires.
Comments
/me does the wheedling needler dance!
Excellent! Wheedling needler dancers are always welcome!
Excellent! Wheedling needler dancers are always welcome!
I feel like I've spawned a new industry... 8)
Attorneys do what you want them to do.
Actually, they do what you "pay them through the nose" to do.
No one is a winner in protracted court cases or even in settlements. The lawyers always win, all the time.
What we need is a lawyer quota. The number of lawyers can never exceed a preset number according to the general population. Trying to be a lawyer when the quota was exceeded? Tough, switch majors. A quota that cuts the current number by 1/5th would be about right. And making it much harder, if not impossible, to file software patents would also work to improve things greatly.
As an AAPL shareholder I don't approve of company money going for a payoff or a bribe to a competitor like Creative, who by the way doesn't have a single creative bone in their body, which is why the iPod is vastly more successful than the offerings of Creative. And I especially loath the fact that so much money is spent in the corporate world on lawyers. Laywers = money. Hence Lawyers are the root of all evil.
I feel like I've spawned a new industry... 8)
Could be. But I can garuntee you one thing: I'm not gonna have any so-called wardrobe malfunctions!
<Jock strap suddenly snaps! oops...>
Apple bases their interface on the MacOS X/NeXT columns view.
Creative bases their interface on the MacOS X/NeXT columns view.
Apple is late in patenting said interface.
Creative is not late in patenting said interface.
The fact that Apple's patent is legit and Creative's is not is irrelevant as filing dates are the only thing that matter.
... does that sum up the situation?
Lawyers are the root of all evil.
actually, the root of ALLEVIL is 397G. The square root anyway.
As an AAPL shareholder I don't approve of company money going for a payoff or a bribe to a competitor like Creative, who by the way doesn't have a single creative bone in their body, which is why the iPod is vastly more successful than the offerings of Creative.
Oh, but this is delicious.
Apple had two choices: legitimize the patent, and pay, or beat the patent, and let everyone else in the industry copy the interface at will.
They paid.
Now Creative can go after everyone else. Say, Zune? Apple gets a portion of the licensing fees.
Apple also got Creative on board as an iPod accessory maker, which means that Creative will now be making Zens, and iPod accessories. Guess which line will get dropped first?
Game. Set. Match. All for a measly 100M$. That's pennies in comparison to what's at stake.
An an AAPL shareholder, I could not be happier.
Actually, they do what you "pay them through the nose" to do.
No one is a winner in protracted court cases or even in settlements. The lawyers always win, all the time.
What we need is a lawyer quota. The number of lawyers can never exceed a preset number according to the general population. Trying to be a lawyer when the quota was exceeded? Tough, switch majors. A quota that cuts the current number by 1/5th would be about right. And making it much harder, if not impossible, to file software patents would also work to improve things greatly.
As an AAPL shareholder I don't approve of company money going for a payoff or a bribe to a competitor like Creative, who by the way doesn't have a single creative bone in their body, which is why the iPod is vastly more successful than the offerings of Creative. And I especially loath the fact that so much money is spent in the corporate world on lawyers. Laywers = money. Hence Lawyers are the root of all evil.
so you want to reduce the supply of lawyers.... <points to a chart on the wall illustrating the effects of supply and demand>
Down the road Apple could buy Creative, or use them as an allie and allow them to use fairplay when the movie store comes out.
I think it was a wise move on Apple's part. Technically the interface is only patented because creative got there first, and then you have portaplayer which make interfaces similar which is actually the interface apple has been using for a long time...
But in the end it's good all around, as a shareholder, I wanted to see the issue resolved quickly. I'm glad Apple made nice with a competitor. It will be a good thing.
I thought the lawsuit was over the interface file browser? If it was, what is the difference between Next's column view and the iPods view?
One browses files on a computer and the other browses metadata on a media player. Duh!
Of course, I'm a hardhead from Brooklyn and would have fought to the bitter end. Or not.
It's no different than Israel stomping Hezbollah over two snatched soldiers. Allowing such crimes without doing anything (i.e., "just settle for something small and hush it up") leaves the door open for others to follow suit in the future. A lot of people paid the price for Israel doing what was right. A lot of pain and suffering resulted, but it had to be done. And while that won't bring peace in the middle east, it does show the world and Israel's violent neighbors that they'd better think twice the next time they try such again.
And so, I'm not one to wimp out and "just settle" because it encourages more crime to continue. And while some may argue that Creative broke no laws, the fact is they are highly unethical at best, which is a crime in my book. What is unethical? When you no longer have the creative juices to keep yourself alive in the market, you hire a lawyer and sue somebody. That is unethical. And that is the mainstay in American business, sadly.
Argue all you want about how good it is for Apple in the end. But a wrong doesn't make a right. Especially when that wrong leaves the door wide open with a sign over it saying, "Come in all ye who need money. Sue us and well shall settle." As an AAPL shareholder, I want Apple to make a lot of profit ethically, without fueling future legal troubles by showing everyone "Apple settles."
It sounds like Apple kindly reminded them that Creative is screwed in the mp3 player market, but because they own a very important patent that Apple wanted to make nice on, Apple was willing to pay $100 mil. Apple probably also helped Creative understand that by allowing them into the third party accessory market, Creative could actually end up making some money now. It's the patent licensing profit sharing that confuses me....
I don't think it's quite "profit sharing." Apple's license of Creative's patents seems to me to be currently "exclusive," in the sense that it's the only company to do so, so far. When other companies license Creative's technology, Apple will recoup some of that money because they negotiated such that if other OEMs license that technology, it wouldn't be worth the $100mil.
In any case, Apple pulled a Microsoft (as someone said): look at the Burst patents; Microsoft licensed their technology, which ultimately funded Burst to sue Apple and others that use technology that (they claim) infringes upon their patent.
If Creative had won, iPod would be likely gutted, either technologically, or financially. End result: huge opening for Zune, Zen gone when it succeeds. Make no doubt about it - MS's move *from* SureToPlay is going to kill the non-iPod market. All those companies that went with MS are now screeeeeeeewed.
It was in Creative's interest to settle, to be honest. They saw the writing on the wall re: Zen... it's dead. They know this. What they just did was to get an out into the iPod market, a cash infusion to keep going during the transition, and validation of the patent (as stupid as it may be) to go after other players if they choose to.
It was in Apple's interest to settle, also. A win would have been costly in the market competition, a loss costly in the pocketbook.
The patent was questionable, no doubt about it, but it was in *no one's* interest to win this one. Odd, no?
And really... could you keep the highly questionable politics out of this thread? PoliticalOutsider is for that.
I don't think it's quite "profit sharing." Apple's license of Creative's patents seems to me to be currently "exclusive," in the sense that it's the only company to do so, so far. When other companies license Creative's technology, Apple will recoup some of that money because they negotiated such that if other OEMs license that technology, it wouldn't be worth the $100mil.
In any case, Apple pulled a Microsoft (as someone said): look at the Burst patents; Microsoft licensed their technology, which ultimately funded Burst to sue Apple and others that use technology that (they claim) infringes upon their patent.
The most significant part of this agreement is that Apple's payment is a one time fee. No licensing fee in perpetuity, and if the next iteration of iPod differs slightly and circumvents the patent, it renders it useless anyway.
It's not about the easy way out. It's about right and wrong and putting your foot down for what is right.
These concepts don't apply to the business world. It's about running your business, providing value to your shareholders, and avoiding jail time for the things that magically became illegal after you did them.
However, once it was granted, and the lawsuit started, this was the best outcome for both companies, and for the consumer. Ironic, but true.
Well here's the thing - this *was* a bogus patent. The basic UI idea had been kicking around for 20 years, more or less. The *only* reason Creative got it was that the USPTO screwed up.
You may be right, but remember, just because this specific thing existed for a computer, it was never patented broadly enough to cover the specific concept of digital music devices. Patents must be broad enough to cover possible uses, but specific enough to gain patent status. If it was easy, everyone would do it and walk away millionaires.